canon rumors FORUM

Trust me, I know that with the same lens on 550D, I wouldn't get something like this. I wouldn't say it's a matter of skill, but the sharpness and detail retention are different. I've been using the same lens for quite a while, so I would say I know it quite well when it's fitted on the 550D, but now I can't say I know it anymore! It's a lot sharper! The only problem is with vignetting though (I use a Tamron 28-75mm F2.. It is not one of the tip-top lens, but I was surprised by its performance.

Trust me, I know that with the same lens on 550D, I wouldn't get something like this.

With the same lens -- of course not!

In theory, you can try to make the similar image (with similar DOF, FOV, etc. as 75 mm f/2.8 on FF) using 550D with some 50/1.4 or 50/1.2 lens stepped down to ~ f/1/6 - f/1.8...

Nope. I do not have such a lens. Very limited to pretty much this lens and 50mm F1.8. I've not yet tried 50mm F1.8 on my 6D yet, so it will be interesting. But conclusion: my lens are producing better images with this new body. Period

I dare say that you can get the same shot from a crop camera with a fast prime unless you view it at 100% magnification. The background blur is not *that* much different between crop and ff, the aperture used, focal length and camera-subject-background distance also matters a lot.

Even when I'm using ISO100, the image quality has a sense of creamy bokeh and dreamy feeling, which I have never achieved using 550D.

Yes, if you are shooting for a thin depth of field and the "dreamy" or "only the nose or one eye in focus" look - but that's not what everyone wants, and I can vouch for the fact that you can get a very nice bokeh from crop with good lenses like 100L or 70-300L.

The point is: With the 6d shots often (when tracking: very often) look double-dreamy, once for the ff look, and once again because it's out of focus and you can delete the shot right away... you can lessen this problem with the 5d3, but at three to four times the price of a decent crop camera, and then you might need some lenses, too...

Trust me, I know that with the same lens on 550D, I wouldn't get something like this. I wouldn't say it's a matter of skill, but the sharpness and detail retention are different. I've been using the same lens for quite a while, so I would say I know it quite well when it's fitted on the 550D, but now I can't say I know it anymore! It's a lot sharper! The only problem is with vignetting though (I use a Tamron 28-75mm F2.. It is not one of the tip-top lens, but I was surprised by its performance.

I am not that surprised by the performance of that lens it is a sleeper. It also has a bit of a following. The biggest problem on canon has always been focusing. Mine is extremely accurate so for me that is not a problem.

I have not had enough time to fully test my new Canon 6D but I agree the images are just plain better than my 60D , EOS M, and NEX 6 in image quality. But testing has been limited to indoor cat shots with a flash. So I have not had an extensive test.

The only way you can justify for yourself if you like the improvement the 6D has over the 70D, is if you use both cameras for yourself, in the situations you shoot in, with the lenses you use. You can't depend on just looking at the work or tests of other people to decide. Plenty of people take great shots with iPhones and compact cameras, especially if it's just content that's displayed at websize. Doesn't mean those are as good as a 6D, but it does mean it depends on WHAT YOU WANT to get out of it, and if you prefer the ergonomics and experience of using a full frame or any specific camera or system.

I used my 50D for 4 years and had over 25,000 shutter cycles. I loved that camera to death, and planned to keep it a bit longer after buying the 6D. After the first couple of days of using the 6D, I had decided to sell the 50D. Eventually a kind gentleman from those internets saw my sale ad, and paid me handsomely for it!

Frankly, if you only shoot birds in very bright daylight with a very high quality telephoto lens (perhaps any of the "big whites"), a 70D very likely makes more sense. The autofocus is no doubt as good or better than the 6D's in bright light, and you get a ton more reach. In the dark, the 6D's center point works where all others in the world do not...and even seems to work better on an f/4 lens in these conditions than an f/2 lens, like my 135L.

For most other stills photography situations, the 6D will excel over the 70D. Perhaps the 70D's image quality is better than the older 7D's, but keep in mind the 7D has generally better AF performance than both the 70D and the 6D...or at least that's what I gather. But the 7D has luminance noise that looks like a gravel driveway overlaying the image starting at about ISO 400. I'll grant you that it isn't as obvious until just above there, but that's not saying much. At ISO 1000 the 7D basically equals the S/N ratio of a Powershot G15 at its own ISO of about half that. That doesn't speak well for the 7D.

Also, one of the main advantages such a high quality image from the 6D is important, is the ability to crop into an image...even one that is shot at high ISO. You can't do that with as much success with the 70D. At the time of shooting, you don't always know or realize, exactly the framing you want...or that a slight or moderate crop winds up looking better when you look at it later on the computer.

For video, the 70D might be better, depending on the situation.

So, if your work is mostly going to be displayed at web sizes, AND YOU HAPPEN TO NEVER EVER CROP INTO AN IMAGE...then you have a lot of affordable choices at your disposal. If you need the flexibility of a Ferrari at Hyundai prices where image quality is concerned, go for the 6D.

Thank you for your points!

Using the cameras myself would indeed be better than relying on shots from other people and I may end up doing so. However, renting both would set me back at least a couple of hundred bucks, which negates most of the savings I could realize by going with the 70D. If somebody could show a few shots where 6D blows crop out of the water (same conditions and not high ISO), that would make my choice much easier. Everybody claims that to be the case, but a picture is worth a thousand words :-).

I dare say that you can get the same shot from a crop camera with a fast prime unless you view it at 100% magnification. The background blur is not *that* much different between crop and ff, the aperture used, focal length and camera-subject-background distance also matters a lot.

Even when I'm using ISO100, the image quality has a sense of creamy bokeh and dreamy feeling, which I have never achieved using 550D.

Yes, if you are shooting for a thin depth of field and the "dreamy" or "only the nose or one eye in focus" look - but that's not what everyone wants, and I can vouch for the fact that you can get a very nice bokeh from crop with good lenses like 100L or 70-300L.

The point is: With the 6d shots often (when tracking: very often) look double-dreamy, once for the ff look, and once again because it's out of focus and you can delete the shot right away... you can lessen this problem with the 5d3, but at three to four times the price of a decent crop camera, and then you might need some lenses, too...

I have already said, I know the quality of shots. It isn't about the bokeh ultimately, it's about the sharpness. When my 550D is in focus, the outline around the subject isn't as distinct or "lines" are thicker.

I dare say that you can get the same shot from a crop camera with a fast prime unless you view it at 100% magnification. The background blur is not *that* much different between crop and ff, the aperture used, focal length and camera-subject-background distance also matters a lot.

Even when I'm using ISO100, the image quality has a sense of creamy bokeh and dreamy feeling, which I have never achieved using 550D.

Yes, if you are shooting for a thin depth of field and the "dreamy" or "only the nose or one eye in focus" look - but that's not what everyone wants, and I can vouch for the fact that you can get a very nice bokeh from crop with good lenses like 100L or 70-300L.

The point is: With the 6d shots often (when tracking: very often) look double-dreamy, once for the ff look, and once again because it's out of focus and you can delete the shot right away... you can lessen this problem with the 5d3, but at three to four times the price of a decent crop camera, and then you might need some lenses, too...

I have already said, I know the quality of shots. It isn't about the bokeh ultimately, it's about the sharpness. When my 550D is in focus, the outline around the subject isn't as distinct or "lines" are thicker.

I dare say that you can get the same shot from a crop camera with a fast prime unless you view it at 100% magnification. The background blur is not *that* much different between crop and ff, the aperture used, focal length and camera-subject-background distance also matters a lot.

Even when I'm using ISO100, the image quality has a sense of creamy bokeh and dreamy feeling, which I have never achieved using 550D.

Yes, if you are shooting for a thin depth of field and the "dreamy" or "only the nose or one eye in focus" look - but that's not what everyone wants, and I can vouch for the fact that you can get a very nice bokeh from crop with good lenses like 100L or 70-300L.

The point is: With the 6d shots often (when tracking: very often) look double-dreamy, once for the ff look, and once again because it's out of focus and you can delete the shot right away... you can lessen this problem with the 5d3, but at three to four times the price of a decent crop camera, and then you might need some lenses, too...

I have already said, I know the quality of shots. It isn't about the bokeh ultimately, it's about the sharpness. When my 550D is in focus, the outline around the subject isn't as distinct or "lines" are thicker.

Do you think this is due to processing, or the sensor itself?

I do not think it's due to processing. I would say it is the sensor itself. Even if it's due to processing by the sensor, I'm happy with that! (When I mean processing, I am referring to something like Photoshop.) Shots coming out of my 6D is instantly better than my 550D, I just don't have an explanation. After moving into full frame, I realize that I will now start to realize (only at certain times) cameras like 550D or D5100 by Nikon do tend to have a thicker and less well-defined outline of subjects, which is rather prominent in portraits.

The difference in having such a nice outline makes it seem more in-focus. It isn't that my previous camera is not in focus; it's just that the outlines produced are that rough. You have to live with it. A lot of times when I thought my lens weren't in focus, I will check it and realize it is in focus, and I think that's the problem with 550D. It might be different with 70D or 7D, but that's another story.

I dare say that you can get the same shot from a crop camera with a fast prime unless you view it at 100% magnification. The background blur is not *that* much different between crop and ff, the aperture used, focal length and camera-subject-background distance also matters a lot.

Even when I'm using ISO100, the image quality has a sense of creamy bokeh and dreamy feeling, which I have never achieved using 550D.

Yes, if you are shooting for a thin depth of field and the "dreamy" or "only the nose or one eye in focus" look - but that's not what everyone wants, and I can vouch for the fact that you can get a very nice bokeh from crop with good lenses like 100L or 70-300L.

The point is: With the 6d shots often (when tracking: very often) look double-dreamy, once for the ff look, and once again because it's out of focus and you can delete the shot right away... you can lessen this problem with the 5d3, but at three to four times the price of a decent crop camera, and then you might need some lenses, too...

I have already said, I know the quality of shots. It isn't about the bokeh ultimately, it's about the sharpness. When my 550D is in focus, the outline around the subject isn't as distinct or "lines" are thicker.

Do you think this is due to processing, or the sensor itself?

I do not think it's due to processing. I would say it is the sensor itself. Even if it's due to processing by the sensor, I'm happy with that! (When I mean processing, I am referring to something like Photoshop.) Shots coming out of my 6D is instantly better than my 550D, I just don't have an explanation. After moving into full frame, I realize that I will now start to realize (only at certain times) cameras like 550D or D5100 by Nikon do tend to have a thicker and less well-defined outline of subjects, which is rather prominent in portraits.

No I meant the camera's internal processing when producing its RAW image (something that can't be bypassed with post editing). As for this outline you're talking about, that almost sounds like the amount of sharpening either the camera is adding, or in post. I've edited a lot of images, and certainly in Adobe's products, you can vary the radius of the sharpening, etc...as well as the "detail" slider.

In that case yes, it's the sensor. I know sharpening in Adobe Photoshop, but this is not something Photoshop can replicate. I guess you will need to really use both to understand. The lines just can't be as fine using Photoshop and the effects are significantly different. I have been using Photoshop for 550D for quite a while, so I would have some understanding regarding that.